02 March 2014 12:01 AM

Dyslexia is not a disease. It is an excuse for bad teachers

I doubt there has ever been a society so easily fooled by pseudo-science and quackery as ours is.

Millions of healthy people take happy pills that do them obvious harm, and are increasingly correlated with inexplicable suicide and worse.

Legions of healthy children are drugged into numbness because they fidget during boring lessons, and countless people are persuaded that they or their children suffer from a supposed disease called ‘dyslexia’, even though there is no evidence at all that it exists.

A few weeks ago I rejoiced at the first major cracks in this great towering dam of lies. Dr Richard Saul brought out his courageous and overdue book, ADHD Does Not Exist.

I also urge everyone to read James Davies’s book Cracked, on the inflated claims of psychiatry since it sold its soul to the pill-makers.

Now comes The Dyslexia Debate, published yesterday, a rigorous study of this alleged ailment by two distinguished academics – Professor Julian Elliott of Durham University, and Professor Elena Grigorenko of Yale University.

Their book makes several points. There is no clear definition of what ‘dyslexia’ is. There is no objective diagnosis of it. Nobody can agree on how many people suffer from it. The widespread belief that it is linked with high intelligence does not stand up to analysis.

And, as Parliament’s Select Committee on Science and Technology said in 2009: ‘There is no convincing evidence that if a child with dyslexia is not labelled as dyslexic, but receives full support for his or her reading difficulty, that the child will do any worse than a child who is labelled dyslexic and then receives special help.’

This is because both are given exactly the same treatment. But as the book’s authors say: ‘Being labelled dyslexic can be perceived as desirable for many reasons.’ These include extra resources and extra time in exams. And then there’s the hope that it will ‘reduce the shame and embarrassment that are often the consequence of literacy difficulties. It may help exculpate the child, parents and teachers from any perceived sense of responsibility’.

I think that last point is the decisive one and the reason for the beetroot-faced fury that greets any critic of ‘dyslexia’ (and will probably greet this book and article). If it’s really a disease, it’s nobody’s fault. But it is somebody’s fault. For the book also describes the furious resistance, among teachers, to proven methods of teaching children to read. Such methods have been advocated by experts since Rudolf Flesch wrote his devastating book Why Johnny Can’t Read almost 60 years ago.

There may well be a small number of children who have physical problems that stop them learning to read. The invention of ‘dyslexia’ does nothing to help them. It means they are uselessly lumped in with millions of others who have simply been badly taught.

It also does nothing for that great majority of poor readers. They are robbed of one of life’s great pleasures and essential skills.

What they need, what we all need, is proper old-fashioned teaching, and who cares if the silly teachers think it is ‘authoritarian’? That’s what teaching is.

The sign of an honest butcher

I wondered when the Soppy Lobby would get round to trying to ban butchers’ shops displaying the recognisable carcases of dead animals. The first attempt, in the Suffolk town of Sudbury, has failed. But it won’t be the last. How sad.

Now that most meat is sold ready packaged in supermarkets, many children grow up with no idea where it comes from. Proper butchers are rarer and rarer. My own view is that you shouldn’t eat meat if you don’t know what it is and how it came to be on your plate.

The spread of cheap, unrecognisable hypermarket meat has helped to create hideous meat factories, where animals are imprisoned and tortured in unspeakable conditions before being cruelly massacred. I’d rather eat lentils than support such methods.

Proper butchers know the names of the farms that supply them, and can tell you where the animals were humanely slaughtered. It’s the hidden cruelty we should object to, not the honesty of the remaining butchers.

Here's the real IRA scandal

What a lot of twaddle we have heard about the dropping of the case against the alleged Hyde Park bomber, John Downey.

On page 56 of the judge’s ruling, point 32 states ‘even if convicted of all the offences he [Downey] would, in consequence of the 1998 Act, serve no more than two years in prison’. So, even if a jury had found him guilty of that ghastly crime, two footling years would have been his lot.

The 1998 Act was part of Britain’s grovelling surrender to the Provisional IRA, made under fierce American pressure.

I said at the time that this was a total and unmitigated defeat, but I have been told over and over again by pious persons that it is the price of ‘peace’.

Well, we have not got peace. We have been utterly humiliated by a criminal gang, at the behest of our supposed allies in the ‘War on Terror’.

And what do you think will happen if we ever dare prosecute another IRA man, let alone put him in jail? They haven’t gone away, you know.

How’s the ‘liberation’ of Ukraine going for you? Gullibly welcomed by 99.9 per cent of the British media, it doesn’t look quite so simple now, does it?

Beginning to have doubts about Britain taking sides? You should. Apart from all the worrying developments in Crimea, which are no surprise to any informed person, it comes to something when that old class warrior, Dennis Skinner MP, speaks for Britain.

But his brief outburst was the most telling thing anybody in Parliament has said about this. He asked William Hague, Secretary of State for Foreign Meddling: ‘Have I got it right, or not, that a Tory Foreign Secretary has come to the House to take money out of the pockets of people in Britain – flood-ravaged and austerity-riddled Britain – to hand it over to the EU fanatics in Ukraine?’ Yes, he has got it right.

More from Mike Barton, Chief Constable of Durham and advocate of free heroin for abusers. I suggested his job was to enforce the law. He retorted: ‘When you say that my job is to enforce the law, between 18 and 22 per cent of my work is law enforcement and crime-fighting. Fifty per cent of my work is concern for safety. That’s what I’m in, so when you accuse me of being a social worker, I’m proud to be a social worker as well as a tough law enforcer.’

What odd figures, and what a strange sort of pride. And I think the people of Durham should be the judges of whether he is a ‘tough law enforcer’.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I do not believe teachers are to blame for a child's lack of learning but some can have lack understanding of a child's needs .I have the label of being dyslexic. In the old days before computers I had read every word I had to right down on paper form the dictionary only to find out I wrote them the wrong way round .by my teacher.

the minute I took my eyes of the dictionary to put the pen to paper and copy the words visually they were the wrong way round this is because my brain and memory digests' in formation differently form others

we don't all see the same written language . I don't blame you for not understanding learning difficulties I don't under stand mines either but I now know when the words are round the other way the computer high lights this with a red squiggle line.

I'm aloud more time when studying in order to correct this other wise there would be no hope for me to gain any qualification's on my own without a scribe so I Suppose your are right this is a huge advantage getting extra time during exams .Its also a need and not a want .

Are you crazy, i have dyslexia and it is not or excuse or a disease it is a different way of thinking. I am not slow or stupid infact i want to study medicine. It is almost a gift i am awful at English however maths and science i adore. I cant see how you can write this i would live you to see a day in my mind dyslexia it is real, trust me!

It's one point on a spectrum of a brains ability to take in information. Dyslexia is an example of how there is not one right way to learn things because there is not one type of brain. It shouldn't be singled out as special, and instead a strong focus should be made for the study of different learning types so children with the same strengths and weaknesses can be easily helped. Going back to the old days of teaching is probably the most ridiculous idea possible. The old way of teaching perpetuates the idea that intelligence is only shown in math and science, casting aside children in other areas. Children need to be helped in discovering their strengths instead of being thrown on the heap if they don't show strength in one chosen field.

Also, neurology is a young science which is still discovering knew things. Instead of ignorantly dismissing the early stages of this science, maybe we should first wait for its metaphorical fruits to ripen.

I think most of us know that dyslexia is an umbrella term for a range of difficulties with language, literacy and sequencing of information. It's not a 'disease' and it can't be diagnosed with scans or blood tests. It is socially and culturally defined. It would have been a bit of a nonsense 250 years ago when the ability to read was a privilege rather than an essential. In today's world information is coming at us thick and fast from all directions and it is a bigger challenge than it has ever been to make head and tail of it all. It therefore follows that some people have a much harder job than others decoding it. Whether their difficulties are defined as 'dyslexia' or 'ADHD' or 'Aspergers', they are all capable people who need help. Or would Peter Hitchens rather go back to the days of dunce caps and caning?

@ Brooks Davis
You are quite correct I call it the* Star Trek Syndrome *. As its their prime directive not to interfere in the planets politics they visit . But always do . Fictional I know and I do not approve its use in grown up matters. But it does fit like a Saville Row suit ,your thesis.

Elaine - I agree with you that it is ridiculous to claim that troops had to be sent in to protect the 'Russian' population. That is not the real reason. Which is ...

... the fact that after the end of the cold war, the Russians were given an assurance that NATO would not expand further East. But since then, step by step, NATO had done just that. So that now Russian finds itself with the prospect of the Ukraine, as a member of NATO, directly on its borders.

And not only that. Much more important is the prospect of having the Russian Black Sea fleet (stationed in the Crimea) practically under NATO control.

Is there any wonder that Putin has reacted? (By the way, I hope you pronounce 'Putin" with a T and and I and an N! And not the way they do it on CNN.)

Elaine, I don't know this, but I doubt that the American and EU officials who openly sided with the then-peaceful demonstrations deliberately intended to cause them to turn violent and overthrow the then-elected government. However, they still bear responsibility for that outcome as instigators because their expressions of support provided encouragement for the anti-government side, and their governments have recognized the resulting unelected government, which was installed via violence and lawlessness. The expressions of support by these officials were breaches of the standard diplomatic protocol of non-interference in internal affairs that has been long established from the principles of the Peace of Westphalia. This is why it was considered outrageous in 1963 in Canada when a Kennedy Administration official published a discrete press release that didn't name names but could be interpreted as a statement of support for the opposition Liberal party against the then-governing Conservative government. (The Liberals did indeed win a minority government shortly afterwards in an election.)

I don't think that Mr. Hitchens is guilty of double standards in this case. The only position he has advocated is to not to take a side. His criticisms have been aimed at undermining the overwhelming support for the pro-EU side. He has just written that he sympathizes with the Russians, and he as a non-diplomat can express his sympathies for a side without actively giving his support to it. However, what is interesting about his sympathy is that it is based in the realization that it is the liberal, anti-Russian-invasion West who is the greater threat to national sovereignty world-wide than the invading, empire-reestablishing Russians are. How mind-bending is that!

I am more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, but I think that the Republicans are a little wrong-headed on this issue. Many of them are still thinking that Putin, who is indeed a former KGB agent, is kind of Hitler who wants to resurrect the USSR. The better analogy may be Peter the Great trying to make a strong, civilized Russian empire. That still means that Putin and Russia are potential rivals who deserve some opposition and wariness, but that is a different problem than the ideological struggle of the Cold War.

"And I would point out that it was the US and the EU who instigated violence, lawlessness and a coup d'etat in the Ukraine before Russia performed its cruder form of interference in response."
Brooks Davis

I have been looking for anything to confirm this, but I can't find it. Even on a website (which from the language seemed rather extreme) called Global Research the most that they said was that the US supported violent groups within the movement.(I don't know if the support was financial or not, but I don't mind assuming that it was) However, from the timeline of events it appears that the violent groups entered the fray later on. If the US or EU took sides and supported these groups then there was certainly meddling but in much the same way that the Syrian uprising played out. It was peaceful for quite some time. It became violent and eventually western countries along with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar eventually sided with the opposition. But did they instigate it? That's another thing.

Another website called Storyleak actually made the accusation that the whole thing was instigated by the West, but I couldn't find anywhere where they actually had any evidence of that so at the moment they remind me of the 9/11 "truthers"

So I thought to see what Free Speech TV was saying. I used to listen to Free Speech Radio in California. Admittedly they are to the left, but they do not have any corporate interests and they will not just sing along to our governments tune even if it is currently led by a Democrat. They are also a non-profit news agency that wouldn't worry about ratings but I find them more credible then some obscure website.
There was an interesting video there called "As Crimea Threatens Secession, Does East West Split Hasten Ukraine's Political Divide?" They had on a Ukrainian, an American and a reporter from the Guardian. The guy from the Guardian was actually supporting some of the things Peter Hitchens has written. (and by the way he brings up the possibility that the snipers were from the opposition, which the Ukrainian was hesitant to admit but said that the current interim government has promised to investigate it ) If you watch it (it's about 25 minutes long) I thought the reporter from the Guardian gave a good summary of how he thought the West should proceed at this point and it was not very sympathetic to the current approach, but I couldn't find any support for the West actually instigating the coup from them either.
My conclusion was that it is more complicated then I thought and the West certainly has some blame, but I also don't think I'm wrong about the double standards.

Even Mr. John "I never met a war I didn't like" McCain is not talking about military intervention, but no one from his side of the aisle is going to say "Oh, it's just a few thousand (who knows how many really. It could be 30,000) troops in Crimea and it seems more Russian then Ukrainian anyway." That's just a whitewash.

P.S. to Brooks Davis-Out of habit, I just keep forgetting to add the "Q" but since I don't see the other Elaine, maybe it doesn't matter. I'm surprised it hasn't happened before now. I've never run into many Elaine's throughout my life, but I've noticed that it seems a more common name in England then here.
You could alternatively call me "Mrs. Q" like some of my students do. I don't really care for it much but Quraishi is a hard name for them to say and my husband has chosen to write it in the most correct transliteration possible. So I have to spell my last name veerrry slowwwlyy.

Bunker-my main point to MikeBarnes is that I'm not living in a 1950's time warp. I also have no relations in Ukraine and I have no grudge against the EU.

"he we have the outrage at Vladimir Puting (how I wish the Americans would learn to pronounce his name at least fairly accurately) for sending in a few thousnad Russian troops into the Crimea which is, if anything, more Russian that Ukrainian anyway."

I'm not particularly outraged at the attempts to annex Crimea (but I'm not a Crimean that might feel like they are under Russian occupation and I'm not a Ukrainian that feels that this is a very aggressive act) , but I can see it for what it is. It is not a reaction to any "humanitarian crisis". The idea that they need to protect the Russian speaking population is absurd and we all know that at least one of the things they want is access to their naval base.

I read Kissinger's article. He makes many of the same observations as Hitchens.

I think that you are making the mistake of treating *formal* sovereignty as a moral absolute. Just because some bureaucrats draw some lines on a map does not mean that the resulting jurisdiction consequently represents some sacred, monolithic, eternal national identity. That is the purpose of Mr. Hitchens' comment about Gorbachev.

The principle from the Peace of Westphalia, that each nation should not invade or intervene in internal affairs of another, is important. But it is utopian to believe that it should be maintained all the time for every arbitrary jurisdiction at any cost.

Instead of requiring loud moral condemnation of “Adolf Putin” to make us all feel better, we grownups need to put the emphasis on long-term practical responses – which are actually moral, too, but require more thought as to how to maximize the welfare of the greater world. As Mr. Kissinger wrote, “For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.” And as Mr. Hitchens told RT on that YouTube clip, both sides have been guilty of interference in Ukraine's affairs. And I would point out that it was the US and the EU who instigated violence, lawlessness and a coup d'etat in the Ukraine before Russia performed its cruder form of interference in response.

When I think of globalization, I think of opening national borders to mass immigration, subordinating local businesses to multinational corporations, removing tariffs and preferences, adopting secular human rights as overriding guiding values, multiculturalism. Russia and China are not doing that in earnest: instead, they are looking after Number 1 and are taking advantage and making money off of us doing globalization.

If that is the difference between American and British conservatives, then it must be because American conservatives are actually classic liberals who will reflexively support the liberal West in any confrontation. However, I am not aware of any commentator, British or otherwise, who I would classify as a classic conservative apart from Hitchens. And he is not anti-Western. He has defended it, particularly the heritage of our Anglosphere countries, many times. Being polemical in constructive criticism of it is not the same thing as being anti-Western. And if you read him carefully, he has not excused the Russian invasion.

A polemicist can be honest, consistent, not hypocritical and very successful at his job, too. However, he can't also provide diplomatic balance all the time.

Please put your response in the more current “Am I a Paid Agent of the Kremlin” thread if you like.

I don't want to intervene in the confrontation betweem mikebarnes and Elaine. But I'd like to make one point which most people seem to regard as too embarrassing to mention.

Firstly we have Germain Katanga found guilty of war crimes for a village massacre in 2003, and no doubt he is a pretty evil characterr with a lot more on his consicience.

The we have the outrage at Vladimir Puting (how I wish the Americans would learn to pronounce his name at least fairly accurately) for sending in a few thousnad Russian troops into the Crimea which is, if anything, more Russian that Ukrainian anyway.

And thirdly we have two despicable gangsters, both of whom have the lives of more than a hundred thousand Iraqis on their consciences (if they have a conscience, that is), one of whom is gadding around the world accumulating a fortune and the other probably playing golf somewhere in Texas. These two 'men of God' should be brought before a court of law and made to answer for their crimes angainst humanity. Why is this not happening?

Brooks Davis-no I'm afraid the latest excuses are still not good enough. "If Gorbachev had handled things better in 1991 Ukraine and Belarus might still be run from Moscow...." Well, it is what it is and Ukraine has been an independent country for 23 years.
What I've learned is that the world can't really count on all of the peace activists for support unless it's the USA that invades. Even if Crimea is a semi-autonomous region and even if there were some agreements to have a certain number of troops there, the Ukrainians seem to view the sudden appearance of Russian troops as an aggressive act.
But that's what happens when a powerful country uses its power and influence badly.
I really hope that both sides can find a compromise but the other thing I've learned is that people won't see hypocrisy even when it's staring them in the face.
By the way, speaking of hypocrisy; if Putin is supposed to be so anti-globalization then he must not know what that is because 40% of his economy is tied up in trade to Europe, Russian energy companies trade on Wall Street (which have just lost 13% of their value) and many Russian businesses have money in US banks.

I've also learned that one big difference between American conservatives and British ones is that American ones don't tend to be this anti-western. They will try to use this to take a swipe at President Obama. They will find a way to blame him, but they will not excuse away (in this instance) what can't be excused.This doesn't mean of course that US politicians have not also acted hypocritically.

The difference between a diplomat and a polemicist is that the diplomat needs to try and find a solution or he won't be very successful at his job. In order to find a solution he has to be honest.

Elaine, I hope that Peter Hitchens' latest article “Am I a Paid Agent of the Kremlin” is enough redress for you. I am glad to see that Henry Kissinger is still alive! He was a professional in diplomacy, of course, rather than a polemicist, so it should not be surprising if his writing gives more of an appearance of balance.

Thank you about the Olympic hockey golds (both men and women). Although I am a dual Canadian-American citizen now, I can't help but favour Canada when when it comes to hockey, still. I'm also glad that Canada won gold in Putin's home town when he and Russia were putting so much stock in winning to prove that they were the best again as in the “glory days” of the USSR (that is a cherished Russian illusion which we continually proved false back then, too). However, you ought to know that USA hockey for males has been gradually catching up to Canada in the last 20 years in both enrolment and quality while enrolment in Canada has been declining because of demographic and cost factors. For females, Team USA had already passed Team Canada since just after the 2010 Olympics. Canada's come-from-behind, overtime victory over the superior Americans at Sochi was our own “Miracle on Ice” moment. You should see the ladies as they have been making public appearances across Canada - they are still partying! However, the pressure of the burden on the men's Team Canada is enormous because this country needs to win gold every time, so their players often feel more relief than joy at winning. I envy the relaxation that I see in the nice, chivalrous expressions of goodwill towards Canada from you and so many other Americans when it comes to hockey. It's there because Americans have had nothing to lose as perennial underdogs in a sport that is not essential to their national identity. However, I expect that Team USA will be the dominant best in the world also on the men's side in another 20 years.

Mike Barnes,
I'm sorry, but your latest comments to me are just too silly to respond to and I'm just not going to bother much. Seriously, I'm not paranoid and that's quite a funny accusation coming from an unabashed racist and obvious bigot. That shouldn't offend you, since you show no shame in being either.
I still think you can be witty and observant so I won't ignore you all the time.

Brooks Davis-
I just wanted to mention that I came across an opinion piece by Henry Kissinger called "How the Ukraine Crisis Ends". He also brought up the complicated and intertwined history of the Ukraine and Russia so I see that I may have understood the point that Mr. Hitchens was also trying to make.
However, I find Mr. Kissinger to be more balanced and fair.

Yes, I made the shelves myself by resting planks on thinner bits of wood screwed into the wall (a woman friend showed me how). As it happens I went to the open night at the school my son will be attending in September and visited the woodwork room. The teachers are all "positive and energized" (at least those who were deemed suitable to put on show) but with that and (I assume compulsory - isn't it always?) swimming you can't hide the dismaying reality.

Albert Ross (teacher of woodwork)
One school I briefly taught in had a special room called Sanctuary for boys ejected from class. On a Friday afternoon it would be bursting at the seams, but while a double period with 2G at that time could damage your health, the atmosphere in Sanctuary was calm and serene. The boys would trickle in bearing notes (one, I remember, read simply "Incredibly rude") and would then sit around talking quietly until it was time to go home. Like actors, they had had their cathartic moment and were back in the dressing room winding down. The worst offendor (in my class he only ever asked me one serious question: "Are plants wood?") used to report directly to Sanctuary in the morning and save the teachers the trouble of throwing him out.

***She gets Benefits, free housing and a car. I guess those are the ones you think give it a bad name . Just as Henry VIII gave you a bad name .Sorry old fella I couldn't resist.***

A fig for Henry the Eighth ... my namesake is Henry Noel the Elizabethan courtier, who never had a penny he didn't spend, and proved such a fantastic dancer that they called him "Bonnyboots." He was also a fairly good lutenist and by all accounts a decent poet, very much like yours truly!

Brooks Davis- if you really believe that Mr. Hitchens has not taken sides in this Russian-Ukrainian standoff then I'm afraid there is probably nothing more for me to say. To me it's so obvious he has and that's why the joke by Vlad on the other thread about being a Russian agent was funny.
I will wait and see what happens, but I think Bob, son of Bob was absolutely right that anyone who will excuse further Russian aggression has lost their moral compass. And, for someone who has been so opposed to the Iraq war or the invasion of Afghanistan, the condemnation should be unequivocal.

But on a happier note, I'm glad Canada won the gold in hockey. If we couldn't then I'm glad your side did. I'm not much of a fan (although my students love hockey. They play the street version on the black top) but it would have been great if we could have had a 1,2 finish again.

@ Elaine Q
Is this the same Elaine from Mormon Country? You say the Russian Parliament has given Putin its permission to invade the Ukraine, If that's a fact then it is democracy in action
Britain and America slaughtered Iraqi's by the hundred thousands Britain certainly didn't have its parliaments support. So who's the bad guys here. The weapons of mass destruction was a joint effort to pull the wool over unsuspecting eyes.
No such propaganda on the Ruskies side.
Yes them Pesky Ruskies. The boogey man every American since the fifties has been wean off as an enemy of freedom .
So your response proves propaganda works . Whilst you were looking for reds under the beds, they were infiltrating the Whitehouse. Non Russian by the way.

@ Henry Noel
But even asthma must have differences in severity. My first Grand daughter had serious ecxma that on adulthood turned into asthma. She suffers it more in hot weather. But obviously not like you. Another I know get attacks under stress. Although I have never witnessed it. She gets Benefits, free housing and a car. I guess those are the ones you think give it a bad name . Just as Henry VIII gave you a bad name .Sorry old fella I couldn't resist.
And just as bad teachers and lazy students gave Dyslexia a bad name

The overdiagnosis of dyslexia is very much like the current trend toward overdiagnosing conditions such as asthma. I am an asthmatic, and I understand perfectly what it is to suffer from the condition. I also know that there are thousands if not millions of people who have been diagnosed with asthma who have never experienced what it is to have to struggle with their breathing; to be under the necessity of forcing air both in and out of the lungs, to the point of physical exhaustion. In fact, the word "asthma" has been so abused by the medical profession that one almost requires a new word to describe the actual condition as it was understood for many years.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.